assets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must alone disclose behavioral traits. It explains that upload requires file_path and returns asset_id, delete requires asset_id, and list returns id, name, type, url. However, it omits details such as file size limits, supported formats, authorization requirements, or error behaviors. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: purpose, use cases, action details, and a note. It is relatively concise and front-loads key information. However, it could be slightly more compact by separating actions into a list for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic inputs and outputs for each action. However, it lacks details on error handling, authorization boundaries, or file size/type constraints. An AI agent might need additional context for robust usage, but the description is sufficient for straightforward calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: action is an enum with three values, file_path is required for upload, asset_id is required for delete. It also clarifies the return of upload (asset_id) and list output fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles, though it could detail file_path format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Upload and manage media files'. It lists specific use cases (backgrounds, Avatar IV photos, custom audio) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'avatars' and 'videos' by focusing on generic media file management. The actions (list, upload, delete) are explicitly described with their functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: list to retrieve assets, upload with required file_path, delete with required asset_id. It also includes a contextual note for Avatar IV usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.